The slickest con ever perpetrated on mankind

Hey there Coyote, I'm trying to remember....it seems like I remember one atheist here who is also somewhat politically conservative, and I think it might be you. Lets find out. Today there is a new kind of helplessness, promoted by the scientific community. That helplessness feeling comes from the promotion of evolution, that everything happens by chance, that there is no God that cares about this world or the people in it. Into today's scientific environment emerged environmentalists, safety experts, government health care advocates, and all sorts of big government liberals. At this point, lets clarify what a "shaman" is. From dictionary.com;

quote:

---

Shaman; (specially among certain tribal peoples) - a person who acts as intermediary between the natural and supernatural worlds, using magic to cure illness, foretell the future, control spiritual forces, etc.

---

They are? Who are they - can you name some that you feel a threat from? I can name you countless liberals, both elected and non-elected, who make glowing promises of safety and a cleaner environment, if we make payments in the form of liberty and money. With implications from the scientific community that there is no ~evidence~ for any afterlife, the only desperation left is to cry to the government for salvation from global warming and the greed of free markets. Not true. Last I heard, Al Gore is still running around lose. Sorry, it's quite true in the realm of scientific, liberal politics as well. Tell you what, you show me some threats to today's U.S. society from shamans, and I'll show you some from scientific liberal Democrats, and we'll see how they compare.

I disagree that it's the "slickest con ever perpetrated on mankind", because it's not even close to what we're seeing from liberal politics in the U.S. today, promoted by the (largely) atheistic scientific community. Yes I am, if you can't name them. (second request)

The word "priests" wasn't used in the opening post. There are huge differences between shamans and priests.

quote:

---

Shamanism contrasts markedly in several important aspects with the tenets that motivate formal religious establishments and the procedures associated with them. First, at the institutional level, the shaman is an individual practitioner whose unusual powers are personal in nature. He usually owes no formal obligation to any faction within the community itself for positon. In fact, he is usually considered an equal among equals and constantly attempts to difuse any power that could be derived from his abilities. This status differs sharply from the priest who derives authority from his constituted office in an established religious organization.

​

The shaman’s powers are personal and immediate. He directly confronts spirits whose significance to his society. The expectations of receiving prompt response to urgent group or individual needs. By contrast, the priest of a formal religion is usually concerned with the conduct of group events in which, through ritual practice, he brings a participating public into contact with sacred forces that are believed to possess universal authority. Moreover, it is far less common for the priest in organized religious ceremonies to encounter supernatural beings directly or to expect immediate results from them. Instead he acts as mediator and intercessor for the participating group with a more remote divinity whose sacred power transcends the exclusive interest of local communities.

---

Why Anthropology? | Anthropology | Mesa Community College Right back atcha! The problem that we seem to have here is that the thread title, and content of the opening post are political in nature, since it makes an accusation of the ~slickest con~ perpetrated on mankind, as if there could be a comparison between it and lesser cons - that's the only thing I can think of that the discussion could be about. So it couldn't be much of anything other than a political discussion, and yet it was placed in a forum where political discussions are taboo. It's four days old and only has a few responses, so there doesn't seem to be much interest, Coyote seems to have lost interest.If you're interested in a discussion about religious cons versus secular cons, maybe you could find a way to re-propose this thread and get in the proper sub forum. You could then use the word "priest" if you like, and we could look at their numbers, their methods, and the dollar amounts you feel they've dishonestly acquired, and compare them to some secular cons that many conservatives in the U.S. feel are a significant problem.

I left it out because I knew it would only be minutes before someone gleefully brought it up. I don't deny that there is a relationship, though I believe it's much more vague than the relationship between evolutionists and atheists, or evolution and abiogenesis. And one of the earliest and broadest terms for evolutionists, was atheists. Then you'll excuse me for doing the exact same thing with evolutionists and atheists. Or do you have double standards? Do you then accuse me of not knowing enough about evolution to do that? Do you know enough about religion to describe all religious people collectively?Do you want to join with Panda to get this in the proper sub forum so we can have a look at some secular cons for comparison to your claim, or did my message 6 convince you that maybe your thread wasn't a very good idea for the home team?

Yes, I would. No, now you're trying to change it, your opening post said it's the "slickest" con, not just a huge one. And you haven’t specified any promises, any particular shaman, or any price, or estimates of cost to society. You seem unprepared for any type of meaningful discussion. Was admin correct, were you really expecting a religious person to claim that religion has no cons at all? I doubt that would happen, you would have an easy time with them if they did. I certainly acknowledge that religious cons can be a serious problem. Just because the con is perpetrated in the name of religion doesn’t mean all of religion is guilty, anymore than junk science condemns all of science. You were quick to point out from my link that "shamanism and organized religion are not mutually exclusive", well guess what, legitimate science and junk science are not mutually exclusive either.My biggest issue is with your claim that religious cons are the slickest, that anything comparable would land the ones making those grandiose promises in jail or worse. Your word slick or even "huge"may not be objective enough for a good discussion, ‘dangerous to society’ or ‘costliest’ would probably be better terms.The problem with your claim is that religion has no official ties with government, so government coercion cannot be used to aid the con, that is, the price paid in religious cons can really only happen by voluntary exchange. Not so with junk science, science HAS official ties with government, so when junk science is used by the EPA or trial lawyers (as only two examples) to con huge amounts of money from an often unwilling populace, the con becomes far more slick, far more costly, and far more dangerous to society, and far more difficult to fix or reverse. Unlike you, I have some examples of the cons I’m talking about.John Edwards conned millions of dollars from insurance companies, the medical profession, and in the end, the general public with his malpractice lawsuits, concerning cerebral palsy in infants and small children.HugeDomains.com

quote:

---

Edwards' trial summaries "routinely went beyond a recitation of his case to a heart-wrenching plea to jurors to listen to the unspoken voices of injured children," according to a comprehensive analysis of Edwards' legal career by The Boston Globe in 2003.

​

The Globe cited an example of Edwards' oratorical skills from a medical malpractice trial in 1985. Edwards had alleged that a doctor and a hospital had been responsible for the cerebral palsy afflicting then-five-year-old Jennifer Campbell.

​

'I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her (Jennifer), I feel her presence,' Edwards told the jury according to court records. "[Jennifer's] inside me and she's talking to you ... And this is what she says to you. She says, 'I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.'"

---

Note the part I bolded above. Jennifer was inside John Edwards! She was talking to him! How slick was that? Remember that to many in the U.S., whether they were listening to him or not, it didn’t matter how slick they found him to be, they paid up, because his con is a legal one, bound by the law. Religious cons don’t have that luxury.As you may have heard, Al Gore is selling carbon credits;Is Al Gore The Greatest Con Man Of All Time?, page 1

quote:

---

Because of global warming we have companies selling "carbon credits". These companies basically take money in exchange for the amount of carbon you produce, claim they spend it on say saving a rainforest and make you feel better about yourself. Even governments are buying into these things.

---

Al Gore could become the world’s first carbon billionaire reads the headline.Environment - The Telegraph

quote:

---

Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, has claimed that Mr Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt.

---

Religious con men can’t get very far in encouraging Congress to adopt anything. Gore says this;

quote:

---

Mr Gore had said that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.

​

"Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?" Mr. Gore said. "I am proud of it. I am proud of it."

---

He is active in business that is corrupt, is based on emotion, and has an excellent chance of failing as it continues to face the test of real world markets and efficiency. But he’ll keep his money. Pretty slick huh?Now if you claim that religious cons are the slickest, you’d need to show me how they can go above and beyond the coercion, the public establishment, of junk science cons. I’ve shown you only two, there are many more of course, and they don’t get much mainstream media attention since they’re not politically correct - the scientific community doesn't appreciate criticism too much. But I’m sure I could find you more — I’m sure you’ll demand them — I can even cite my personal experiences with the farce of auto emission testing, the complete lack of evidence that it was necessary or that it did any good, but I’ll have to ask you (for the third time) to first get started with your examples of religious cons.

You used the word "slickest", that's "SLICK EST in your opening post and now you're running and hiding from it. You mentioned anyone but religious con-artists being "put in jail or worse" for equivalent non-evidenced cons. It's there in message 1 for anyone to see, unless they misread it. No misreading going on from my end. What is there to debate? You, the majority of posters here, and 93% of the National Academy of Scientists are militant atheists. So what? You'll still be a tiny minority in the U.S. for generations to come.You started the thread off talking about shamans, a small handful of people, especially in today’s society, who use religion as a method for their con games. So it’s clear now that your implication is that because a tiny minority of religious people are con men, then ALL of religion is a con. If your thinking is that shallow, there's nothing more for us to discuss. Pay me now for a promise of life after death IS a con, it’s not the legitimate Christian religion. The word of God actually instructs against seeking salvation from humans other than Christ.Evolutionists here often lament how creationist posters post in science forums with little knowledge of science. It would be nice if atheists would learn something about religion before trying to weaken its hold, as Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg instructs them to do.

I never said religion is a con, I only acknowledged that it can be used as a con by dishonest people. That doesn’t make religion any more guilty than science is guilty for those who dishonestly promote junk science. As a wild guess without any research, I’d say it would come in about 10th. Junk science would probably fill up the first 9 positions. Maybe someday when I have more time I’ll start a thread on junk science. Lower than John Edwards? He has little girls inside of him to talk only to him, but that's okay because he's a liberal? There we go again, you assess Christianity without knowing anything about it.

It’s the main one in the western world, and it’s the one that is by far under the most attack from the scientific community. Now now, you're too hard on yourself, I'm making every effort to give you the same equal time I'm giving to everyone else. Could the pot be calling the kettle black here? Do you have evidence that evolutionists don’t do the exact same thing to creationists? Because that’s what attacks on religion in the U.S. are, and it’s documented. There are many cases where separation of church and state results is laws requiring restrictions in Christian public displays/actions, while giving a free pass to muslim displays/actions. They encapsulate beliefs of other cultures in other governments, usually on the other side of the world. Most all discussions on these forums are about governments and religions of the western world. No. The details of societies in the far east don’t interest me. That doesn’t mean I look down on them, I’m just not involved with them. They don't promote any junk science that poses a threat to the society I live in. The scientific community seldom if ever seems to refer to them, or oppose or try to change them.

No, I actually loved them, because they obviously were your intended meaning, and you’re still in shock from getting busted so quickly. No need to change anything. A simple atheist talking point? Your opening post could have been much shorter and easier to understand with that — it would have been just another tired invitation for a 20 against 1 religious versus atheist battle. Aren’t there enough of them on these forums? I’m not interested in any new ones, nothing new would ever be accomplished.Your embarrassment should be starting to ease up now, your helpers are moving in, we see that one used a vulgar word, and another called me not very smart, so those should be major victories for you. I'm sure you'll get more support, but my work in this thread seems to be done, from here on I'll only respond to something substantial. Maybe when the dust settles in a few days, I'll do a summary. May Darwin bless you.

It's not insanity, it's quite legit to wonder why those on scientific forums make a big deal about religious cons, yet never seem to wonder about junk science cons. Almost as bad as evolutionists usage of the term "creationist", isn't it?

quote:

---

2 Timothy 3, 16, 17 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

---

2 Timothy 3:16-17 NIV - All Scripture is God-breathed and is - Bible Gateway